- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:15:56 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, public-ldp-wg <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 10/11/2012 09:56 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 11/10/12 13:46, Alexandre Bertails wrote: >> But imposing >> absolute URIs to define RDF graph is plain wrong, and highly >> impractical. > > Do you agree the RDF specs do require absolute URIs as those specs are > currently written (or drafted in RDF 1.1)? I agree that people working with RDF databases don't have any incentive to deal with relative URIs, as everything being absolute helps having identifiers that don't change, so it's easier for them. I believe that when it comes to data *on* the Web (so you can use URLs), then you can always provide a context to resolve relative URIs. Despite the stack being called Semantic Web, the use case where things are not the Web is not properly handled. At the end, I don't see the difference with a browser getting a HTML document... You have all the URLs being resolved to absolute URLs, and that's what matters at the end of the day. Alexandre. > > Andy >
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 14:15:58 UTC